Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 701

control, N = 351

treatment, N = 351

p-value2

age

70

50.92 ± 12.67 (25 - 74)

50.48 ± 13.41 (25 - 74)

51.36 ± 12.06 (31 - 72)

0.775

gender

70

0.794

f

49 (70%)

24 (69%)

25 (71%)

m

21 (30%)

11 (31%)

10 (29%)

occupation

70

0.936

day_training

1 (1.4%)

1 (2.9%)

0 (0%)

full_time

6 (8.6%)

4 (11%)

2 (5.7%)

homemaker

6 (8.6%)

3 (8.6%)

3 (8.6%)

other

2 (2.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (5.7%)

part_time

13 (19%)

6 (17%)

7 (20%)

retired

15 (21%)

7 (20%)

8 (23%)

self_employ

2 (2.9%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (2.9%)

student

1 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.9%)

t_and_e

2 (2.9%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (2.9%)

unemploy

22 (31%)

12 (34%)

10 (29%)

marital

70

0.924

cohabitation

1 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.9%)

divore

8 (11%)

5 (14%)

3 (8.6%)

married

15 (21%)

7 (20%)

8 (23%)

none

40 (57%)

20 (57%)

20 (57%)

seperation

3 (4.3%)

2 (5.7%)

1 (2.9%)

widow

3 (4.3%)

1 (2.9%)

2 (5.7%)

edu

70

0.992

bachelor

20 (29%)

9 (26%)

11 (31%)

diploma

12 (17%)

7 (20%)

5 (14%)

hd_ad

3 (4.3%)

2 (5.7%)

1 (2.9%)

postgraduate

6 (8.6%)

3 (8.6%)

3 (8.6%)

primary

5 (7.1%)

2 (5.7%)

3 (8.6%)

secondary_1_3

7 (10%)

3 (8.6%)

4 (11%)

secondary_4_5

15 (21%)

8 (23%)

7 (20%)

secondary_6_7

2 (2.9%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (2.9%)

fam_income

70

0.918

10001_12000

4 (5.7%)

1 (2.9%)

3 (8.6%)

12001_14000

4 (5.7%)

2 (5.7%)

2 (5.7%)

14001_16000

5 (7.1%)

2 (5.7%)

3 (8.6%)

16001_18000

2 (2.9%)

1 (2.9%)

1 (2.9%)

18001_20000

4 (5.7%)

3 (8.6%)

1 (2.9%)

20001_above

10 (14%)

6 (17%)

4 (11%)

2001_4000

9 (13%)

6 (17%)

3 (8.6%)

4001_6000

10 (14%)

4 (11%)

6 (17%)

6001_8000

7 (10%)

4 (11%)

3 (8.6%)

8001_10000

6 (8.6%)

2 (5.7%)

4 (11%)

below_2000

9 (13%)

4 (11%)

5 (14%)

medication

70

60 (86%)

31 (89%)

29 (83%)

0.495

onset_duration

70

15.38 ± 11.60 (0 - 56)

16.98 ± 12.86 (1 - 56)

13.78 ± 10.13 (0 - 35)

0.251

onset_age

70

35.53 ± 13.88 (14 - 64)

33.50 ± 12.73 (14 - 58)

37.57 ± 14.86 (15 - 64)

0.222

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 701

control, N = 351

treatment, N = 351

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

70

3.14 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.29 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

>0.999

recovery_stage_b

70

17.99 ± 2.63 (9 - 23)

17.86 ± 2.70 (9 - 23)

18.11 ± 2.59 (13 - 23)

0.686

ras_confidence

70

30.44 ± 4.78 (19 - 43)

29.71 ± 4.23 (19 - 40)

31.17 ± 5.24 (20 - 43)

0.205

ras_willingness

70

12.07 ± 1.95 (7 - 15)

11.94 ± 1.89 (9 - 15)

12.20 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)

0.585

ras_goal

70

17.59 ± 2.98 (12 - 24)

17.51 ± 3.00 (12 - 24)

17.66 ± 3.00 (12 - 24)

0.843

ras_reliance

70

13.20 ± 2.84 (8 - 20)

12.89 ± 2.60 (8 - 18)

13.51 ± 3.06 (8 - 20)

0.358

ras_domination

70

10.01 ± 2.16 (3 - 15)

10.43 ± 1.96 (6 - 15)

9.60 ± 2.30 (3 - 14)

0.110

symptom

70

30.06 ± 9.95 (14 - 56)

31.00 ± 9.76 (14 - 52)

29.11 ± 10.19 (15 - 56)

0.432

slof_work

70

22.53 ± 4.85 (10 - 30)

22.51 ± 4.43 (15 - 30)

22.54 ± 5.30 (10 - 30)

0.981

slof_relationship

70

25.77 ± 6.02 (11 - 35)

25.37 ± 6.28 (13 - 35)

26.17 ± 5.81 (11 - 35)

0.582

satisfaction

70

20.81 ± 6.89 (5 - 32)

19.26 ± 6.62 (5 - 29)

22.37 ± 6.90 (5 - 32)

0.058

mhc_emotional

70

11.33 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

10.89 ± 3.42 (3 - 17)

11.77 ± 4.19 (4 - 18)

0.336

mhc_social

70

15.11 ± 5.50 (6 - 30)

15.37 ± 5.56 (7 - 30)

14.86 ± 5.51 (6 - 26)

0.699

mhc_psychological

70

22.39 ± 6.11 (6 - 36)

21.94 ± 5.79 (10 - 36)

22.83 ± 6.47 (6 - 36)

0.548

resilisnce

70

16.63 ± 4.53 (6 - 27)

16.26 ± 4.37 (6 - 24)

17.00 ± 4.72 (7 - 27)

0.496

social_provision

70

13.71 ± 2.94 (5 - 20)

13.26 ± 2.56 (8 - 20)

14.17 ± 3.25 (5 - 20)

0.195

els_value_living

70

17.33 ± 2.95 (5 - 25)

16.66 ± 2.38 (12 - 22)

18.00 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.056

els_life_fulfill

70

12.90 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)

11.89 ± 3.05 (5 - 17)

13.91 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)

0.008

els

70

30.23 ± 5.57 (9 - 45)

28.54 ± 4.45 (20 - 36)

31.91 ± 6.12 (9 - 45)

0.010

social_connect

70

26.76 ± 9.31 (8 - 48)

27.74 ± 8.25 (8 - 45)

25.77 ± 10.28 (8 - 48)

0.380

shs_agency

70

14.59 ± 4.93 (3 - 24)

13.89 ± 4.64 (3 - 21)

15.29 ± 5.18 (3 - 24)

0.238

shs_pathway

70

16.70 ± 3.95 (4 - 24)

16.23 ± 3.85 (8 - 24)

17.17 ± 4.04 (4 - 23)

0.321

shs

70

31.29 ± 8.40 (7 - 47)

30.11 ± 8.13 (13 - 45)

32.46 ± 8.62 (7 - 47)

0.246

esteem

70

12.70 ± 1.49 (10 - 18)

12.86 ± 1.57 (10 - 18)

12.54 ± 1.40 (10 - 16)

0.381

mlq_search

70

14.91 ± 3.38 (3 - 21)

14.80 ± 3.17 (6 - 21)

15.03 ± 3.63 (3 - 21)

0.780

mlq_presence

70

13.60 ± 4.13 (3 - 21)

13.51 ± 3.57 (5 - 20)

13.69 ± 4.67 (3 - 21)

0.864

mlq

70

28.51 ± 6.71 (6 - 42)

28.31 ± 5.95 (12 - 40)

28.71 ± 7.47 (6 - 42)

0.805

empower

70

19.60 ± 4.12 (6 - 28)

19.11 ± 3.82 (11 - 24)

20.09 ± 4.41 (6 - 28)

0.328

ismi_resistance

70

14.60 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

14.31 ± 2.27 (11 - 19)

14.89 ± 3.08 (5 - 20)

0.380

ismi_discrimation

70

11.33 ± 3.24 (5 - 19)

12.26 ± 2.86 (5 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.37 (5 - 19)

0.015

sss_affective

70

10.00 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

10.57 ± 3.49 (3 - 18)

9.43 ± 4.19 (3 - 18)

0.219

sss_behavior

70

9.70 ± 3.99 (3 - 18)

10.49 ± 3.97 (3 - 18)

8.91 ± 3.92 (3 - 18)

0.100

sss_cognitive

70

8.27 ± 4.01 (3 - 18)

8.66 ± 4.26 (3 - 18)

7.89 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

0.425

sss

70

27.97 ± 11.03 (9 - 54)

29.71 ± 10.56 (9 - 54)

26.23 ± 11.36 (9 - 54)

0.188

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.14

0.207

2.74, 3.55

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.000

0.293

-0.574, 0.574

1.00

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.137

0.291

-0.434, 0.708

0.641

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.205

0.416

-0.611, 1.02

0.625

Pseudo R square

0.011

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.454

17.0, 18.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.257

0.642

-1.00, 1.52

0.690

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.333

0.608

-1.52, 0.858

0.586

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.810

0.868

-0.892, 2.51

0.355

Pseudo R square

0.016

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.847

28.1, 31.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.46

1.198

-0.890, 3.80

0.227

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.367

0.818

-1.24, 1.97

0.656

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.186

1.171

-2.11, 2.48

0.875

Pseudo R square

0.025

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.9

0.337

11.3, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.257

0.477

-0.677, 1.19

0.591

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.638

0.321

-1.27, -0.009

0.053

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.497

0.459

-0.403, 1.40

0.285

Pseudo R square

0.024

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.529

16.5, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.143

0.748

-1.32, 1.61

0.849

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.922

0.552

-2.00, 0.161

0.102

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.49

0.790

-0.057, 3.04

0.065

Pseudo R square

0.025

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

12.9

0.465

12.0, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.629

0.658

-0.661, 1.92

0.342

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.473

0.409

-0.328, 1.27

0.253

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.579

0.585

-0.568, 1.73

0.328

Pseudo R square

0.041

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.4

0.363

9.72, 11.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.829

0.513

-1.83, 0.177

0.110

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.579

0.463

-1.49, 0.328

0.217

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.31

0.662

0.008, 2.60

0.054

Pseudo R square

0.028

symptom

(Intercept)

31.0

1.681

27.7, 34.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.89

2.378

-6.55, 2.77

0.430

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.105

1.186

-2.22, 2.43

0.930

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.737

1.698

-4.07, 2.59

0.667

Pseudo R square

0.012

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.5

0.827

20.9, 24.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.029

1.170

-2.26, 2.32

0.981

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.695

0.619

-1.91, 0.517

0.268

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.562

0.886

-2.30, 1.17

0.529

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.4

1.008

23.4, 27.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.800

1.426

-1.99, 3.59

0.576

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.02

0.900

-2.79, 0.743

0.263

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.561

1.288

-1.96, 3.09

0.666

Pseudo R square

0.011

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.3

1.182

16.9, 21.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.11

1.672

-0.162, 6.39

0.066

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.733

1.187

-1.59, 3.06

0.540

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.26

1.699

-4.59, 2.07

0.462

Pseudo R square

0.037

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.9

0.640

9.63, 12.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.886

0.905

-0.888, 2.66

0.331

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.446

0.542

-0.615, 1.51

0.415

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.14

0.775

-2.66, 0.378

0.149

Pseudo R square

0.009

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.4

0.963

13.5, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.514

1.362

-3.18, 2.16

0.707

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.03

0.907

-0.750, 2.80

0.264

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.56

1.298

-4.11, 0.980

0.235

Pseudo R square

0.014

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.9

1.086

19.8, 24.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.886

1.536

-2.12, 3.90

0.566

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.594

1.026

-1.42, 2.61

0.566

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.66

1.469

-4.54, 1.22

0.264

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.730

14.8, 17.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.743

1.032

-1.28, 2.77

0.474

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.182

0.720

-1.23, 1.59

0.802

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.319

1.030

-1.70, 2.34

0.758

Pseudo R square

0.011

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.507

12.3, 14.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.914

0.717

-0.490, 2.32

0.205

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.922

0.556

-2.01, 0.169

0.104

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.844

0.796

-0.716, 2.40

0.294

Pseudo R square

0.050

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.494

15.7, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.34

0.699

-0.028, 2.71

0.058

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.273

0.450

-0.610, 1.16

0.547

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.221

0.645

-1.48, 1.04

0.733

Pseudo R square

0.046

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.9

0.514

10.9, 12.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.03

0.727

0.603, 3.45

0.007

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.899

0.487

-0.055, 1.85

0.072

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.928

0.697

-2.29, 0.437

0.190

Pseudo R square

0.081

els

(Intercept)

28.5

0.902

26.8, 30.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.37

1.276

0.871, 5.87

0.010

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.15

0.770

-0.359, 2.66

0.143

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.11

1.102

-3.27, 1.05

0.319

Pseudo R square

0.077

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.7

1.576

24.7, 30.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.97

2.229

-6.34, 2.40

0.379

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.785

1.142

-1.45, 3.02

0.496

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.887

1.635

-4.09, 2.32

0.590

Pseudo R square

0.016

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.9

0.834

12.3, 15.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.40

1.180

-0.912, 3.71

0.239

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.278

0.774

-1.24, 1.79

0.721

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.408

1.107

-1.76, 2.58

0.715

Pseudo R square

0.026

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.2

0.665

14.9, 17.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.943

0.940

-0.899, 2.78

0.319

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.343

0.590

-0.814, 1.50

0.564

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.402

0.845

-2.06, 1.25

0.637

Pseudo R square

0.011

shs

(Intercept)

30.1

1.410

27.4, 32.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.34

1.994

-1.57, 6.25

0.244

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.624

1.235

-1.80, 3.04

0.616

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.020

1.768

-3.44, 3.48

0.991

Pseudo R square

0.021

esteem

(Intercept)

12.9

0.237

12.4, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.314

0.335

-0.971, 0.342

0.350

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.158

0.351

-0.531, 0.846

0.656

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.120

0.501

-0.863, 1.10

0.812

Pseudo R square

0.015

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.8

0.579

13.7, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.229

0.819

-1.38, 1.83

0.781

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.382

0.669

-1.69, 0.930

0.571

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.348

0.957

-1.53, 2.22

0.718

Pseudo R square

0.004

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.5

0.685

12.2, 14.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.171

0.968

-1.73, 2.07

0.860

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.123

0.736

-1.57, 1.32

0.869

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.193

1.053

-1.87, 2.26

0.855

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq

(Intercept)

28.3

1.150

26.1, 30.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.400

1.626

-2.79, 3.59

0.806

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.511

1.264

-2.99, 1.97

0.688

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.539

1.808

-3.00, 4.08

0.767

Pseudo R square

0.003

empower

(Intercept)

19.1

0.679

17.8, 20.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.971

0.960

-0.911, 2.85

0.315

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.261

0.582

-1.40, 0.880

0.656

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.441

0.833

-2.07, 1.19

0.599

Pseudo R square

0.014

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.3

0.430

13.5, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.571

0.607

-0.619, 1.76

0.349

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.173

0.557

-0.919, 1.27

0.757

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.302

0.796

-1.86, 1.26

0.706

Pseudo R square

0.009

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.3

0.538

11.2, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.86

0.761

-3.35, -0.366

0.017

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.518

0.502

-1.50, 0.467

0.309

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.931

0.719

-0.479, 2.34

0.203

Pseudo R square

0.059

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.6

0.631

9.33, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.14

0.892

-2.89, 0.606

0.204

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.202

0.506

-0.790, 1.19

0.692

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.06

0.725

-2.48, 0.359

0.151

Pseudo R square

0.046

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.5

0.639

9.23, 11.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.57

0.904

-3.34, 0.201

0.086

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.310

0.619

-1.52, 0.903

0.619

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.417

0.886

-2.15, 1.32

0.640

Pseudo R square

0.054

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.66

0.663

7.36, 9.96

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.771

0.938

-2.61, 1.07

0.413

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.02

0.510

0.021, 2.02

0.052

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.80

0.730

-3.23, -0.369

0.018

Pseudo R square

0.043

sss

(Intercept)

29.7

1.800

26.2, 33.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.49

2.546

-8.48, 1.50

0.175

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.02

1.304

-1.54, 3.57

0.439

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.32

1.867

-6.98, 0.341

0.083

Pseudo R square

0.052

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.74, 3.55], t(103) = 15.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 5.32e-15, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.57], t(103) = 1.82e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = -5.72e-16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.71], t(103) = 0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.58])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.02], t(103) = 0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.84])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [16.97, 18.75], t(103) = 39.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.52], t(103) = 0.40, p = 0.689; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.86], t(103) = -0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.51], t(103) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.94])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.71 (95% CI [28.05, 31.37], t(103) = 35.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.89, 3.80], t(103) = 1.22, p = 0.224; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.97], t(103) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.11, 2.48], t(103) = 0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.94 (95% CI [11.28, 12.60], t(103) = 35.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.19], t(103) = 0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.27, -8.63e-03], t(103) = -1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.63, -4.32e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.40], t(103) = 1.08, p = 0.279; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.51 (95% CI [16.48, 18.55], t(103) = 33.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.61], t(103) = 0.19, p = 0.849; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.00, 0.16], t(103) = -1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.06, 3.04], t(103) = 1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.96])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.89 (95% CI [11.97, 13.80], t(103) = 27.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.92], t(103) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.27], t(103) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.73], t(103) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.43 (95% CI [9.72, 11.14], t(103) = 28.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-1.83, 0.18], t(103) = -1.61, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.33], t(103) = -1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.31, 95% CI [8.09e-03, 2.60], t(103) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [3.77e-03, 1.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.00 (95% CI [27.70, 34.30], t(103) = 18.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.89, 95% CI [-6.55, 2.77], t(103) = -0.79, p = 0.428; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.43], t(103) = 0.09, p = 0.929; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-4.07, 2.59], t(103) = -0.43, p = 0.664; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.51 (95% CI [20.89, 24.14], t(103) = 27.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-2.26, 2.32], t(103) = 0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = 5.82e-03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.52], t(103) = -1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-2.30, 1.17], t(103) = -0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.37 (95% CI [23.40, 27.35], t(103) = 25.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.99, 3.59], t(103) = 0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.02, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.74], t(103) = -1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.09], t(103) = 0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.26 (95% CI [16.94, 21.57], t(103) = 16.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 6.39], t(103) = 1.86, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.90])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.59, 3.06], t(103) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-4.59, 2.07], t(103) = -0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.43e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.89 (95% CI [9.63, 12.14], t(103) = 17.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.66], t(103) = 0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.51], t(103) = 0.82, p = 0.410; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.38], t(103) = -1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.37 (95% CI [13.48, 17.26], t(103) = 15.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.18, 2.16], t(103) = -0.38, p = 0.706; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.80], t(103) = 1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-4.11, 0.98], t(103) = -1.21, p = 0.228; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.94 (95% CI [19.81, 24.07], t(103) = 20.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-2.12, 3.90], t(103) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.61], t(103) = 0.58, p = 0.563; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-4.54, 1.22], t(103) = -1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.26 (95% CI [14.83, 17.69], t(103) = 22.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.28, 2.77], t(103) = 0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.59], t(103) = 0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.70, 2.34], t(103) = 0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.26, 14.25], t(103) = 26.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.49, 2.32], t(103) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.75])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.17], t(103) = -1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.40], t(103) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.78])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.66 (95% CI [15.69, 17.63], t(103) = 33.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.03, 2.71], t(103) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-9.25e-03, 0.90])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.16], t(103) = 0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.04], t(103) = -0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.89 (95% CI [10.88, 12.89], t(103) = 23.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [0.60, 3.45], t(103) = 2.79, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.19, 1.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.85], t(103) = 1.85, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.59])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.44], t(103) = -1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.54 (95% CI [26.77, 30.31], t(103) = 31.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.37, 95% CI [0.87, 5.87], t(103) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [0.16, 1.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.66], t(103) = 1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-3.27, 1.05], t(103) = -1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.74 (95% CI [24.65, 30.83], t(103) = 17.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.97, 95% CI [-6.34, 2.40], t(103) = -0.88, p = 0.376; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-1.45, 3.02], t(103) = 0.69, p = 0.492; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-4.09, 2.32], t(103) = -0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.89 (95% CI [12.25, 15.52], t(103) = 16.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.91, 3.71], t(103) = 1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.79], t(103) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.76, 2.58], t(103) = 0.37, p = 0.713; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.23 (95% CI [14.93, 17.53], t(103) = 24.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.78], t(103) = 1.00, p = 0.316; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.50], t(103) = 0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-2.06, 1.25], t(103) = -0.48, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.11 (95% CI [27.35, 32.88], t(103) = 21.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.34, 95% CI [-1.57, 6.25], t(103) = 1.17, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.80, 3.04], t(103) = 0.51, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-3.44, 3.48], t(103) = 0.01, p = 0.991; Std. beta = 2.41e-03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.26) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.86 (95% CI [12.39, 13.32], t(103) = 54.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.34], t(103) = -0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.85], t(103) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.61])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.10], t(103) = 0.24, p = 0.811; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.80 (95% CI [13.67, 15.93], t(103) = 25.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.38, 1.83], t(103) = 0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.93], t(103) = -0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.22], t(103) = 0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.51 (95% CI [12.17, 14.86], t(103) = 19.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.73, 2.07], t(103) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.57, 1.32], t(103) = -0.17, p = 0.868; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.87, 2.26], t(103) = 0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.31 (95% CI [26.06, 30.57], t(103) = 24.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-2.79, 3.59], t(103) = 0.25, p = 0.806; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-2.99, 1.97], t(103) = -0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-3.00, 4.08], t(103) = 0.30, p = 0.765; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.11 (95% CI [17.78, 20.45], t(103) = 28.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.85], t(103) = 1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.88], t(103) = -0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-2.07, 1.19], t(103) = -0.53, p = 0.596; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.31 (95% CI [13.47, 15.16], t(103) = 33.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.76], t(103) = 0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.27], t(103) = 0.31, p = 0.756; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.26], t(103) = -0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.26 (95% CI [11.20, 13.31], t(103) = 22.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.86, 95% CI [-3.35, -0.37], t(103) = -2.44, p = 0.015; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.04, -0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.47], t(103) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.34], t(103) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.72])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.57 (95% CI [9.33, 11.81], t(103) = 16.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.89, 0.61], t(103) = -1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.19], t(103) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.48, 0.36], t(103) = -1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.49 (95% CI [9.23, 11.74], t(103) = 16.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.57, 95% CI [-3.34, 0.20], t(103) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.05])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.90], t(103) = -0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.32], t(103) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.66 (95% CI [7.36, 9.96], t(103) = 13.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.77, 95% CI [-2.61, 1.07], t(103) = -0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.02, 2.02], t(103) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [5.49e-03, 0.52])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.80, 95% CI [-3.23, -0.37], t(103) = -2.46, p = 0.014; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.83, -0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.71 (95% CI [26.19, 33.24], t(103) = 16.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.49, 95% CI [-8.48, 1.50], t(103) = -1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.54, 3.57], t(103) = 0.78, p = 0.435; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.32, 95% CI [-6.98, 0.34], t(103) = -1.78, p = 0.076; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

352.209

360.283

-173.105

346.209

recovery_stage_a

random

6

356.578

372.726

-172.289

344.578

1.631

3

0.652

recovery_stage_b

null

3

521.108

529.182

-257.554

515.108

recovery_stage_b

random

6

525.375

541.523

-256.688

513.375

1.733

3

0.630

ras_confidence

null

3

636.943

645.018

-315.472

630.943

ras_confidence

random

6

640.519

656.667

-314.260

628.519

2.424

3

0.489

ras_willingness

null

3

437.545

445.619

-215.772

431.545

ras_willingness

random

6

438.705

454.853

-213.352

426.705

4.840

3

0.184

ras_goal

null

3

541.806

549.880

-267.903

535.806

ras_goal

random

6

543.242

559.390

-265.621

531.242

4.564

3

0.207

ras_reliance

null

3

506.247

514.321

-250.124

500.247

ras_reliance

random

6

503.202

519.350

-245.601

491.202

9.046

3

0.029

ras_domination

null

3

472.423

480.497

-233.212

466.423

ras_domination

random

6

473.741

489.889

-230.870

461.741

4.683

3

0.197

symptom

null

3

762.409

770.483

-378.204

756.409

symptom

random

6

767.281

783.429

-377.640

755.281

1.128

3

0.770

slof_work

null

3

616.032

624.106

-305.016

610.032

slof_work

random

6

616.941

633.089

-302.471

604.941

5.091

3

0.165

slof_relationship

null

3

669.008

677.082

-331.504

663.008

slof_relationship

random

6

672.937

689.085

-330.468

660.937

2.072

3

0.558

satisfaction

null

3

713.450

721.524

-353.725

707.450

satisfaction

random

6

715.877

732.025

-351.939

703.877

3.573

3

0.311

mhc_emotional

null

3

566.714

574.788

-280.357

560.714

mhc_emotional

random

6

570.014

586.162

-279.007

558.014

2.699

3

0.440

mhc_social

null

3

663.025

671.099

-328.513

657.025

mhc_social

random

6

666.788

682.936

-327.394

654.788

2.237

3

0.525

mhc_psychological

null

3

688.665

696.739

-341.333

682.665

mhc_psychological

random

6

693.182

709.330

-340.591

681.182

1.483

3

0.686

resilisnce

null

3

604.751

612.825

-299.376

598.751

resilisnce

random

6

609.468

625.616

-298.734

597.468

1.284

3

0.733

social_provision

null

3

537.102

545.176

-265.551

531.102

social_provision

random

6

537.241

553.389

-262.621

525.241

5.861

3

0.119

els_value_living

null

3

517.111

525.185

-255.556

511.111

els_value_living

random

6

519.087

535.235

-253.544

507.087

4.024

3

0.259

els_life_fulfill

null

3

533.963

542.037

-263.982

527.963

els_life_fulfill

random

6

530.360

546.508

-259.180

518.360

9.603

3

0.022

els

null

3

647.719

655.793

-320.859

641.719

els

random

6

645.463

661.611

-316.732

633.463

8.255

3

0.041

social_connect

null

3

750.743

758.817

-372.371

744.743

social_connect

random

6

755.164

771.312

-371.582

743.164

1.578

3

0.664

shs_agency

null

3

631.082

639.156

-312.541

625.082

shs_agency

random

6

634.350

650.498

-311.175

622.350

2.732

3

0.435

shs_pathway

null

3

576.967

585.041

-285.483

570.967

shs_pathway

random

6

581.760

597.908

-284.880

569.760

1.207

3

0.751

shs

null

3

740.783

748.857

-367.391

734.783

shs

random

6

744.738

760.887

-366.369

732.738

2.044

3

0.563

esteem

null

3

383.907

391.981

-188.954

377.907

esteem

random

6

388.172

404.320

-188.086

376.172

1.735

3

0.629

mlq_search

null

3

564.158

572.232

-279.079

558.158

mlq_search

random

6

569.612

585.760

-278.806

557.612

0.545

3

0.909

mlq_presence

null

3

595.547

603.621

-294.773

589.547

mlq_presence

random

6

601.441

617.589

-294.720

589.441

0.106

3

0.991

mlq

null

3

710.199

718.273

-352.100

704.199

mlq

random

6

715.884

732.032

-351.942

703.884

0.316

3

0.957

empower

null

3

580.407

588.481

-287.204

574.407

empower

random

6

583.918

600.066

-285.959

571.918

2.489

3

0.477

ismi_resistance

null

3

506.406

514.480

-250.203

500.406

ismi_resistance

random

6

511.491

527.640

-249.746

499.491

0.915

3

0.822

ismi_discrimation

null

3

539.604

547.678

-266.802

533.604

ismi_discrimation

random

6

539.184

555.332

-263.592

527.184

6.420

3

0.093

sss_affective

null

3

562.849

570.923

-278.424

556.849

sss_affective

random

6

563.093

579.241

-275.547

551.093

5.756

3

0.124

sss_behavior

null

3

578.798

586.872

-286.399

572.798

sss_behavior

random

6

579.387

595.535

-283.694

567.387

5.410

3

0.144

sss_cognitive

null

3

572.675

580.749

-283.337

566.675

sss_cognitive

random

6

570.799

586.947

-279.400

558.799

7.875

3

0.049

sss

null

3

784.914

792.988

-389.457

778.914

sss

random

6

784.130

800.278

-386.065

772.130

6.784

3

0.079

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

35

3.14 ± 1.22

35

3.14 ± 1.22

1.000

0.000

recovery_stage_a

2nd

20

3.28 ± 1.20

-0.137

19

3.48 ± 1.20

-0.343

0.597

-0.206

recovery_stage_b

1st

35

17.86 ± 2.69

35

18.11 ± 2.69

0.690

-0.125

recovery_stage_b

2nd

20

17.52 ± 2.61

0.162

19

18.59 ± 2.60

-0.232

0.204

-0.520

ras_confidence

1st

35

29.71 ± 5.01

35

31.17 ± 5.01

0.227

-0.546

ras_confidence

2nd

20

30.08 ± 4.44

-0.137

19

31.72 ± 4.40

-0.207

0.248

-0.615

ras_willingness

1st

35

11.94 ± 1.99

35

12.20 ± 1.99

0.591

-0.246

ras_willingness

2nd

20

11.30 ± 1.76

0.609

19

12.06 ± 1.74

0.134

0.182

-0.721

ras_goal

1st

35

17.51 ± 3.13

35

17.66 ± 3.13

0.849

-0.079

ras_goal

2nd

20

16.59 ± 2.83

0.508

19

18.23 ± 2.81

-0.315

0.073

-0.902

ras_reliance

1st

35

12.89 ± 2.75

35

13.51 ± 2.75

0.342

-0.474

ras_reliance

2nd

20

13.36 ± 2.38

-0.357

19

14.57 ± 2.36

-0.793

0.115

-0.911

ras_domination

1st

35

10.43 ± 2.15

35

9.60 ± 2.15

0.110

0.533

ras_domination

2nd

20

9.85 ± 2.05

0.373

19

10.33 ± 2.05

-0.467

0.470

-0.307

symptom

1st

35

31.00 ± 9.95

35

29.11 ± 9.95

0.430

0.495

symptom

2nd

20

31.10 ± 8.26

-0.028

19

28.48 ± 8.13

0.166

0.320

0.688

slof_work

1st

35

22.51 ± 4.89

35

22.54 ± 4.89

0.981

-0.014

slof_work

2nd

20

21.82 ± 4.10

0.349

19

21.29 ± 4.05

0.631

0.684

0.268

slof_relationship

1st

35

25.37 ± 5.96

35

26.17 ± 5.96

0.576

-0.274

slof_relationship

2nd

20

24.35 ± 5.19

0.349

19

25.71 ± 5.13

0.157

0.412

-0.466

satisfaction

1st

35

19.26 ± 6.99

35

22.37 ± 6.99

0.066

-0.802

satisfaction

2nd

20

19.99 ± 6.26

-0.189

19

21.84 ± 6.20

0.136

0.355

-0.477

mhc_emotional

1st

35

10.89 ± 3.79

35

11.77 ± 3.79

0.331

-0.505

mhc_emotional

2nd

20

11.33 ± 3.25

-0.254

19

11.08 ± 3.21

0.397

0.806

0.146

mhc_social

1st

35

15.37 ± 5.70

35

14.86 ± 5.70

0.707

0.174

mhc_social

2nd

20

16.40 ± 5.02

-0.348

19

14.32 ± 4.97

0.182

0.197

0.704

mhc_psychological

1st

35

21.94 ± 6.42

35

22.83 ± 6.42

0.566

-0.265

mhc_psychological

2nd

20

22.54 ± 5.66

-0.178

19

21.76 ± 5.61

0.320

0.668

0.232

resilisnce

1st

35

16.26 ± 4.32

35

17.00 ± 4.32

0.474

-0.316

resilisnce

2nd

20

16.44 ± 3.84

-0.077

19

17.50 ± 3.81

-0.213

0.388

-0.452

social_provision

1st

35

13.26 ± 3.00

35

14.17 ± 3.00

0.206

-0.498

social_provision

2nd

20

12.34 ± 2.75

0.502

19

14.09 ± 2.73

0.042

0.048

-0.959

els_value_living

1st

35

16.66 ± 2.93

35

18.00 ± 2.93

0.058

-0.917

els_value_living

2nd

20

16.93 ± 2.56

-0.187

19

18.05 ± 2.53

-0.036

0.171

-0.766

els_life_fulfill

1st

35

11.89 ± 3.04

35

13.91 ± 3.04

0.007

-1.279

els_life_fulfill

2nd

20

12.78 ± 2.68

-0.567

19

13.88 ± 2.66

0.018

0.201

-0.694

els

1st

35

28.54 ± 5.34

35

31.91 ± 5.34

0.010

-1.353

els

2nd

20

29.69 ± 4.59

-0.461

19

31.95 ± 4.54

-0.016

0.125

-0.907

social_connect

1st

35

27.74 ± 9.32

35

25.77 ± 9.32

0.379

0.537

social_connect

2nd

20

28.53 ± 7.78

-0.214

19

25.67 ± 7.66

0.028

0.251

0.778

shs_agency

1st

35

13.89 ± 4.93

35

15.29 ± 4.93

0.239

-0.556

shs_agency

2nd

20

14.16 ± 4.33

-0.110

19

15.97 ± 4.29

-0.272

0.193

-0.718

shs_pathway

1st

35

16.23 ± 3.93

35

17.17 ± 3.93

0.319

-0.492

shs_pathway

2nd

20

16.57 ± 3.41

-0.179

19

17.11 ± 3.38

0.030

0.620

-0.282

shs

1st

35

30.11 ± 8.34

35

32.46 ± 8.34

0.244

-0.585

shs

2nd

20

30.74 ± 7.22

-0.156

19

33.10 ± 7.14

-0.161

0.307

-0.590

esteem

1st

35

12.86 ± 1.40

35

12.54 ± 1.40

0.350

0.259

esteem

2nd

20

13.01 ± 1.40

-0.130

19

12.82 ± 1.40

-0.229

0.665

0.160

mlq_search

1st

35

14.80 ± 3.42

35

15.03 ± 3.42

0.781

-0.103

mlq_search

2nd

20

14.42 ± 3.19

0.172

19

14.99 ± 3.17

0.015

0.572

-0.260

mlq_presence

1st

35

13.51 ± 4.05

35

13.69 ± 4.05

0.860

-0.071

mlq_presence

2nd

20

13.39 ± 3.69

0.051

19

13.76 ± 3.67

-0.029

0.758

-0.150

mlq

1st

35

28.31 ± 6.80

35

28.71 ± 6.80

0.806

-0.096

mlq

2nd

20

27.80 ± 6.24

0.123

19

28.74 ± 6.20

-0.007

0.638

-0.225

empower

1st

35

19.11 ± 4.02

35

20.09 ± 4.02

0.315

-0.515

empower

2nd

20

18.85 ± 3.46

0.138

19

19.38 ± 3.42

0.372

0.632

-0.281

ismi_resistance

1st

35

14.31 ± 2.54

35

14.89 ± 2.54

0.349

-0.305

ismi_resistance

2nd

20

14.49 ± 2.44

-0.092

19

14.76 ± 2.44

0.069

0.731

-0.144

ismi_discrimation

1st

35

12.26 ± 3.18

35

10.40 ± 3.18

0.017

1.135

ismi_discrimation

2nd

20

11.74 ± 2.80

0.317

19

10.81 ± 2.77

-0.252

0.301

0.566

sss_affective

1st

35

10.57 ± 3.73

35

9.43 ± 3.73

0.204

0.699

sss_affective

2nd

20

10.77 ± 3.17

-0.124

19

8.57 ± 3.13

0.526

0.031

1.349

sss_behavior

1st

35

10.49 ± 3.78

35

8.91 ± 3.78

0.086

0.778

sss_behavior

2nd

20

10.18 ± 3.35

0.153

19

8.19 ± 3.32

0.360

0.066

0.985

sss_cognitive

1st

35

8.66 ± 3.92

35

7.89 ± 3.92

0.413

0.469

sss_cognitive

2nd

20

9.68 ± 3.31

-0.621

19

7.11 ± 3.26

0.474

0.016

1.564

sss

1st

35

29.71 ± 10.65

35

26.23 ± 10.65

0.175

0.831

sss

2nd

20

30.73 ± 8.88

-0.243

19

23.93 ± 8.75

0.548

0.018

1.623

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(97.32) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.58)

2st

t(104.75) = 0.53, p = 0.597, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.97)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(94.09) = 0.40, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.53)

2st

t(104.81) = 1.28, p = 0.204, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.72)

ras_confidence

1st

t(79.93) = 1.22, p = 0.227, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.93 to 3.84)

2st

t(103.61) = 1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-1.16 to 4.45)

ras_willingness

1st

t(79.52) = 0.54, p = 0.591, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.21)

2st

t(103.38) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.87)

ras_goal

1st

t(82.35) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.63)

2st

t(104.54) = 1.81, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-0.16 to 3.43)

ras_reliance

1st

t(77.55) = 0.96, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.94)

2st

t(101.73) = 1.59, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.71)

ras_domination

1st

t(91.32) = -1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.19)

2st

t(104.90) = 0.73, p = 0.470, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.78)

symptom

1st

t(73.83) = -0.79, p = 0.430, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-6.62 to 2.85)

2st

t(95.16) = -1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-7.83 to 2.59)

slof_work

1st

t(74.63) = 0.02, p = 0.981, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.36)

2st

t(97.10) = -0.41, p = 0.684, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.12 to 2.06)

slof_relationship

1st

t(77.92) = 0.56, p = 0.576, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-2.04 to 3.64)

2st

t(102.11) = 0.82, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.92 to 4.64)

satisfaction

1st

t(81.07) = 1.86, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.21 to 6.44)

2st

t(104.14) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.10 to 5.81)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(76.76) = 0.98, p = 0.331, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.69)

2st

t(100.79) = -0.25, p = 0.806, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.31 to 1.80)

mhc_social

1st

t(79.21) = -0.38, p = 0.707, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.23 to 2.20)

2st

t(103.17) = -1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-5.25 to 1.09)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(79.32) = 0.58, p = 0.566, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.17 to 3.94)

2st

t(103.24) = -0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-4.36 to 2.80)

resilisnce

1st

t(80.52) = 0.72, p = 0.474, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.80)

2st

t(103.91) = 0.87, p = 0.388, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-1.37 to 3.49)

social_provision

1st

t(84.19) = 1.28, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.34)

2st

t(104.86) = 2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (0.02 to 3.50)

els_value_living

1st

t(78.38) = 1.92, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.73)

2st

t(102.54) = 1.38, p = 0.171, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.49 to 2.74)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(79.36) = 2.79, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -1.28, 95% CI (0.58 to 3.48)

2st

t(103.27) = 1.29, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.80)

els

1st

t(76.93) = 2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.35, 95% CI (0.83 to 5.91)

2st

t(101.00) = 1.55, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.64 to 5.16)

social_connect

1st

t(74.18) = -0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-6.41 to 2.47)

2st

t(96.06) = -1.16, p = 0.251, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-7.77 to 2.05)

shs_agency

1st

t(78.83) = 1.19, p = 0.239, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.95 to 3.75)

2st

t(102.90) = 1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.93 to 4.54)

shs_pathway

1st

t(77.80) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.81)

2st

t(101.99) = 0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.62 to 2.70)

shs

1st

t(77.48) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-1.63 to 6.31)

2st

t(101.65) = 1.03, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-2.20 to 6.93)

esteem

1st

t(100.60) = -0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.35)

2st

t(104.79) = -0.43, p = 0.665, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.69)

mlq_search

1st

t(86.36) = 0.28, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.86)

2st

t(104.99) = 0.57, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.59)

mlq_presence

1st

t(83.39) = 0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.10)

2st

t(104.75) = 0.31, p = 0.758, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.97 to 2.70)

mlq

1st

t(84.23) = 0.25, p = 0.806, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.83 to 3.63)

2st

t(104.86) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-3.01 to 4.89)

empower

1st

t(77.02) = 1.01, p = 0.315, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.88)

2st

t(101.12) = 0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.72)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(92.27) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.78)

2st

t(104.86) = 0.34, p = 0.731, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.82)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(79.02) = -2.44, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-3.37 to -0.34)

2st

t(103.04) = -1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.84)

sss_affective

1st

t(75.76) = -1.28, p = 0.204, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-2.92 to 0.63)

2st

t(99.28) = -2.18, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 1.35, 95% CI (-4.21 to -0.20)

sss_behavior

1st

t(79.96) = -1.74, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.37 to 0.23)

2st

t(103.63) = -1.86, p = 0.066, Cohen d = 0.98, 95% CI (-4.11 to 0.13)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(75.05) = -0.82, p = 0.413, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-2.64 to 1.10)

2st

t(97.99) = -2.44, p = 0.016, Cohen d = 1.56, 95% CI (-4.66 to -0.48)

sss

1st

t(74.17) = -1.37, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-8.56 to 1.59)

2st

t(96.04) = -2.41, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.62, 95% CI (-12.41 to -1.20)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(51.97) = 1.14, p = 0.520, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.94)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(49.89) = 0.76, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.73)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.51) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.25)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(42.32) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.81 to 0.53)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(43.67) = 1.00, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.72)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.39) = 2.50, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.90)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(48.28) = 1.52, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.68)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.67) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.10 to 1.83)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(40.04) = -1.98, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.54 to 0.03)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.56) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-2.33 to 1.41)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(43.05) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.99 to 1.94)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(41.02) = -1.25, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.82 to 0.43)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(42.17) = -0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.42 to 1.35)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(42.22) = -1.01, p = 0.634, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.20 to 1.06)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(42.79) = 0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.99)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(44.57) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.08)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(41.78) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.99)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(42.24) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.98)

els

1st vs 2st

t(41.10) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.64)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.83) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.47 to 2.27)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(41.99) = 0.86, p = 0.788, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.29)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.51) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.17)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(41.36) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.92 to 3.21)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(54.48) = 0.77, p = 0.891, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.00)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(45.66) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.35)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(44.17) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.46 to 1.60)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(44.59) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.59 to 2.65)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(41.14) = -1.17, p = 0.495, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.51)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(48.82) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.02)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(42.08) = 0.80, p = 0.858, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.46)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.56) = -1.65, p = 0.213, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.19)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.53) = -1.14, p = 0.519, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.56)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.23) = -1.49, p = 0.290, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.28)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(39.83) = -1.72, p = 0.188, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.01 to 0.41)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(50.92) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.73)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(48.99) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.90)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.14) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.03)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(41.96) = -1.98, p = 0.109, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.01)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(43.22) = -1.66, p = 0.208, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.20)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.10) = 1.15, p = 0.511, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.30)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(47.51) = -1.24, p = 0.440, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.36)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.49) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.51)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(39.84) = -1.12, p = 0.538, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.56)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.26) = -1.13, p = 0.530, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.85 to 0.80)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(42.65) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.67 to 3.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(40.76) = 0.82, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.54)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(41.83) = 1.13, p = 0.532, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.86)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(41.87) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.67)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(42.41) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.64)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(44.06) = -1.65, p = 0.213, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.21)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(41.47) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.19)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(41.89) = 1.84, p = 0.146, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.89)

els

1st vs 2st

t(40.83) = 1.49, p = 0.289, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.71)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.65) = 0.69, p = 0.994, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.53 to 3.10)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(41.66) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.85)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.21) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.54)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(41.07) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.13)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(53.26) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.87)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(45.07) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.74 to 0.97)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(43.69) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.37)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(44.08) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.07 to 2.05)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(40.87) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.92)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(48.00) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.30)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(41.74) = -1.03, p = 0.621, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.50)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.33) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.23)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.16) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.94)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.02) = 2.00, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.05)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(39.64) = 0.78, p = 0.881, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.62 to 3.66)

Plot

Clinical significance